Remove xp penalty's from death

If your goal is to retain an audience, easily accessible level capping works against you, not for you.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If your goal is to retain an audience, easily accessible level capping works against you, not for you.

Haven't we already established that a reduced death penalty at levels 95-100 does not make level 100 easily accessible? It makes it possible for more players (possible enough to influence goal setting and time/reward satisfaction in a positive way). But it's still quite a challenge, and a grind.

"

Haven't we already established that a reduced death penalty at levels 95-100 does not make level 100 easily accessible? It makes it possible for more players.

It makes it more easily accessible. Something that is completely and 100% not needed.

People can if they choose get to level 100 if they'd like. It will be hard, grindy and a fulfilling experience. Making that experience "easier" or more "accessible" isn't necessary.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Haven't we already established that a reduced death penalty at levels 95-100 does not make level 100 easily accessible? It makes it possible for more players. But it's still quite a challenge, and a grind.

Well that's the thing I realized (and yes, I changed my mind). I don't want "grinding" to be a criteria at all.

I want level 100, regardless of league, to be a true skill wall.

By "skill wall," I mean the player needs to actually be attentive and click well during combat. They need to use the mouse with expertise. They need to plan angles and routes and escapes. They need to evaluate threats, knowing when to retreat and when to press an advantage. They cannot be on autopilot the entire time.

By "true" I mean there is no shortcut. You cannot just "grind" your way through. You cannot simply outgear it. You might do these things anyway, and you probably will, but they won't be enough by themselves. Without the in-combat skill, you'll still fail.

It needs to be such a sustained performance, for such a length of time, that no one in their right mind would call you "just lucky." Or "just rich." It needs to be a truly epic achievement.

The vast majority of players won't reach it. They should never reach it, no matter how long they grind or what gear they have, until they can develop the required level of skill.

Now, I do not consider desync a game feature; I consider it a bug. I think it sucks that players who want to reach 100 need to learn desync mitigation skills in order to make it. I do not think that is what this game should be about.

But, I am not willing to let go of a true skill wall because of desync. Desync or no, you should not be able to just "grind it out." You should not be able to just overgear it. You can't compromise things like this just because of a bug in the game, no matter how obnoxious.

So until then, it sucks, but if you want 100, learn how to avoid desync, or how to live if it occurs. People have done so; you can too.

Agree 100% with the post above mine.

That's the scrotie I've missed. I know what I want to fight for and how to fight it but I have a hard time putting to words the feelings behind why I'm fighting and that sums it up greatly. The death penalty is the skill component and it's just as, if not more important than the time consuming nature of the grind.

Scrotie have you played any time in the recent future? I'm not sure when you snapped on the game but for me it was was around SotV time, which I feel was about the same for you. Coming back for masters has been nice, game has genuinely gotten better. Not sure if you've given it a shot with all the changes in mind, if you haven't I'd suggest doing so.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

1) As everyone stated, those last 10-15 Passive points are not make or break to any builds, so at level 95, the death penalty becomes LESS about a build/gear check.

How is it not a build\gear\playstyle check, you don't die in PoE unless you fuck up. Really comes down to that.

"

2) Right now, the "trick" to get to 100, would be to play by yourself, take an hour per map. Only pull 1 rare at a time. tippy toe around each map. It will take forever, and it won't be fun, but you will get to 100.

The trick is to just not play with retards, I can assure you the best way to get to level 100 is a trusted well communicated rotation group. I'd love for other level 100's to chime in, but it doesn't appear we will get any.

"

But because no matter how good your build is, there are several things in this game that can kill anyone. So due to some messed up coincidences and multipliers you just got 1 shot. So why are we penalizing the player for a freak accident. Obviously noone WANTS to die, but sometimes crazy shit happens, and with the frequency that "shit hits the fan", I feel the 10% is too much xp to lose.

Why are HC players punished by completely removing the character from that league. If death wasn't avoidable or easily planned around then we would have no level 100 characters in HC leagues, but we do.

"

I don't think this is what GGG wants in an ARPG.. They want you Pwn'ing shit, getting your character the best gear, make him look sweet. ect. brb lunch break

How do they not want death to mean something, if they didn't they would remove the penalty, but they didn't?

Again @levy you seem to be making this conversation all about getting level 100, it isn't truly about that, it is whether or not the death penalty is effective at punishing deaths.

Why do you keep saying the same bullshit when people already explained to you about everything you just replied to quoted things? Or do you want me to reply at each your reply? Then you will not get it again and will keep saying all the same stuff and act like a winner in the debates. Again. Want me to?

My faith in GGG still has been shaken. Deeply.

But when we started talking about level 100 players, and I started connecting actual players to that level of achievement... Well, I still have faith in those folks, and what they've accomplished.

Just because I think GGG has turned its back on designing for skill, doesn't mean I should. That was clearly my struggle as I entered this thread, and I'm glad I've sorted it out with myself.

Thanks Goetz.

Btw I still feel there should be some kind of item portion to the death penalty. :3 Enough XP to ensure skillwall for 100, enough item to prevent zerg MFing.

10% might still be more XP than skillwall needs. Idk. But definitely at least 5% XP, any less just wouldn't serve the purpose. Removing XP penalty completely is utterly out of the question.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

Haven't we already established that a reduced death penalty at levels 95-100 does not make level 100 easily accessible? It makes it possible for more players (possible enough to influence goal setting and time/reward satisfaction in a positive way). But it's still quite a challenge, and a grind.

Well that's the thing I realized (and yes, I changed my mind). I don't want "grinding" to be a criteria at all.

I want level 100, regardless of league, to be a true skill wall.

By "skill wall," I mean the player needs to actually be attentive and click well during combat. They need to use the mouse with expertise. They need to plan angles and routes and escapes. They need to evaluate threats, knowing when to retreat and when to press an advantage. They cannot be on autopilot the entire time.

By "true" I mean there is no shortcut. You cannot just "grind" your way through. You cannot simply outgear it. You might do these things anyway, and you probably will, but they won't be enough by themselves. Without the in-combat skill, you'll still fail.

It needs to be such a sustained performance, for such a length of time, that no one in their right mind would call you "just lucky." Or "just rich." It needs to be a truly epic achievement.

The vast majority of players won't reach it. They should never reach it, no matter how long they grind or what gear they have, until they can develop the required level of skill.

Now, I do not consider desync a game feature; I consider it a bug. I think it sucks that players who want to reach 100 need to learn desync mitigation skills in order to make it. I do not think that is what this game should be about.

But, I am not willing to let go of a true skill wall because of desync. Desync or no, you should not be able to just "grind it out." You should not be able to just overgear it. You can't compromise things like this just because of a bug in the game, no matter how obnoxious.

So until then, it sucks, but if you want 100, learn how to avoid desync, or how to live if it occurs. People have done so; you can too.

Why not argue to increase the XP penalty then? What makes 10% a good number, vs 15% or 5%? Why not lose all of your XP for that level when you die?

Reduction of the death penalty at 95-99 does not eliminate the skill wall. You still need to gain XP at a rate greater than XP lost from death. You still need to be attentive and click well during combat. You still need to use the mouse with expertise, plan angles and routes and escapes, evaluate threats, know when to retreat and when to press an advantage.

The question is, how many consecutive level 78 maps should a solo player be able to clear without any deaths in order to progress 11% at level 99 (i.e. in order to make level 100 achievable). For a 10% penalty, my calculation puts that number at 70+ level 78 maps. Moosifer claims based on his own experience it's half that. How long of a sustained performance do you consider to be adequate?

My position is that it's currently too high. It's so high that it strongly encourages players to build characters that entirely bypass the skill wall, so that level 100 can be achieved via mindless autopilot grind. You can simply outgear/outbuild it. One of the desync mitigation strategies is just to use a passive/gear/skill setup that enables you to safely stand in a room while everything beats on you. We have builds that can afk during atziri fights or double dominus palace. It may not be required to use such builds to reach level 100, but it's a clear and efficient option for players who can't reach the level of sustained performance you desire.

I would prefer not to incentivize using such builds, because I find them extremely unfun. I want my character to die horribly every now and then. Utilizing a build and/or an aggressive playstyle that gets destroyed during periods of absent/incorrect player input (i.e. during instances of desync or poor latency) is truer to embracing skill-based gameplay than utilizing a build and/or a very safe playstyle that easily survives instances of desync or poor latency.

I want to encourage more builds, skills, and playstyles that are viable for progression to 100, irrespective of geographic region. I want more players to set higher level goals. I want to feel more satisfied with time/reward at high levels. Reducing the sustained performance requirement by reducing the death penalty at high levels is one way to achieve this. Two alternative methods for reducing the sustained performance requirement are (a) reduce the XP penalty due to level difference between player and monster, or (b) add higher level content. While (a) and/or (b) would satisfy my goals, they would also reduce the time it takes to reach level 100 for characters who don't die. I feel that targeting the death penalty instead is the better option, as the minimum time requirement to reach level 100 isn't reduced.

My preference would be to cap the 10% XP penalty at the amount of XP lost for a death at level 90. This would be 50.67% of the current XP penalty at 99, i.e. (160,890,604/10) / (317,515,914/10) = 0.5067, requiring a sustained performance of ~35*lvl78 maps (my calculation) or ~17.5*lvl78 maps (Moosifer's suggested value).

Current arguments against reducing the penalty are consistent with arguments that would support increasing it. If you don't want to effectively halve it, what's your argument against doubling it?

Your facts are simply incorrect when it comes down to going from 99>100.

I've posted this video already in this thread and it goes to prove that people just respond without reading the whole thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1yUzXoPvdE

He explains you only get ~1 million more XP an hour running 78s vs low level maps. Put it in perspective if you play for 9 hours a day chaining low level maps you could instead play for 1 less hour a day if you roll packsize, beyond, ect 78s. So from a cost perspective and a risk perspective there is no reason to do high level\dangerous maps from 99>100.

So lets talk about the rest of the levels, now the discussion is no longer about reaching level 100, but rather level 99.

I think we can probably agree that the penalty doesn't hurt that much until 90+, yes at 85 you lose more then an hours worth of XP typically, but you were probably doing a map your build\character\ect weren't ready for.

Second lets talk about mods, this discussion should be about map mods\difficult of maps. If a player chooses to do super hard maps, they are the ones taking the high risk for the relatively low XP gain. People can sustain map pools without rolling super high quantity maps. So the reason to roll difficult mods are A) challenge and B) loot. You could however, if your goal is to progress to level 99 simply roll option c) packsize\ez mods.

People want everything from maps, loot, return, xp, ect. Problem is you need to take a risk if you want it all. Basically current system rewards those (if you don't die) with all of it. As soon as you die you lose a percentage of XP, which is why the current system is balanced.

Also want to mentioned, if I hadn't before that reaching level 99 in PoE is no way required for any content in the game, that has a huge implication on the fact that the player chooses to either a) accept they won't level a character or b) invest serious time, currency, planning, ect into doing it. Even reducing the XP loss by 1% isn't necessary, level 99 (or 100) is completely and utterly optional to play the game. This isn't WoW or any other game where you need a max level character.